Perhaps Steve Jobs and company were tempting fate when Apple announced in a recent series of ads that the MacBooks were "the world's greenest family of notebooks", referencing their power saving use of Intel processors and their halogen and plastic free construction. Unsurprisingly, Greenpeace was there to punch a hole in Apple's dreams as it delivered its environmental report card full of less-than-glowing things to say about Apple's big claims.

While Apple deserves credit for eliminating brominated flame-retardants (BFRs) and other toxic plastics and managing relatively low power consumption, Greenpeace says the company's lack of providing a timeline in phasing out other potentially harmful compounds used in the laptops and their production is one of its key problems. Another significant shortcoming is Apple's failure to create environmental impact reports and tackle the problem of tech trash, it states.

Greenpeace gives Apple a failing rating -- 4.3 out of 10 (PDF). Writes Greenpeace, "[Apple]needs to commit to phasing out additional substances with timelines, improve its policy on chemicals and its reporting on chemicals management."

Apple's spokesperson declined to comment on the criticism, saying merely that customers should check out the "Apple and the Environment" section of the company's website if they want information on the company's environmental policy.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

If Apple happens to be fibbing a tad in its marketing campaign, it certainly wouldn't be the first time. But please be specific with comments that suggest that Apple's claims are false and that other manufacturers are ahead. I'm not saying that such claims are wrong, I just would like to see some proof.

There are 103 notebooks that reach the EPEAT Gold standard. Apple's recent additions are certainly welcome.

So... did everybody else suddenly start doing worse this year, or did Greenpeace make their grading harder? Because Sony Ericsson lost like, a whole point, Nokia lost a half a point, etc. Lenovo went from nearly 8 to under 4. Geez, they obviously made a bad 'green' choice. Haha, Microsoft got a 2.9.

I see there are additional criteria on this report card that weren't there for the March '07 report card. That must be what's up.